http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

http://mormonsfor8.com/

Is it fair that the donor list has been made available to the public? 

The proposition 8 people wanted the names who donated to defeat it.  They even started sending out letter saying that they had to give the same amount to them or they would publicize their names.  Considering the fact that proposition 8 destroyed relationship and families just because those who oppose it feel it's not proper . . . the answer is yes.

I would want to know what companies support or oppose prop 8 so I know who I don't and do want to buy from but I don't know about listing individuals names...

What really gets me is many of those donors are NOT from California. I just don't think that is right. If they are from CA, I don't have a problem with donating to causes that effect their state (even though I do not agree with what they are donating to) but I just think it is so wrong for people outside the state to be involved.



Cat

What really gets me is many of those donors are NOT from California. I just don't think that is right. If they are from CA, I don't have a problem with donating to causes that effect their state (even though I do not agree with what they are donating to) but I just think it is so wrong for people outside the state to be involved.

Cat


Cat you raise a point that I agree with.  In my mind one of the best forms of campaign finance reform is to ban election contributions by people who are not in the jurisdiction of the issue being voted on or the politician who is up for election.  In other words, if you cannot legally vote in the election, you should be prohibited from contributing to it.

My rule would also prohibit unions and businesses from contributing to elections, because companies and organizations cannot vote.  Only individuals can vote.

Now if an individual wants to spend a million $$$ to get his brother elected the local dog catcher, I am fine with that as long as he can vote in the election.

Cat you raise a point that I agree with.  In my mind one of the best forms of campaign finance reform is to ban election contributions by people who are not in the jurisdiction of the issue being voted on or the politician who is up for election.  In other words, if you cannot legally vote in the election, you should be prohibited from contributing to it.


Catch-22.  Your propopsal has gut appeal, but it's got a fatal flaw.

Suppose I can't vote in a town's election of its dogcatcher. 

Suppose I just post on a message board that "The guy who's got the big sign budget is getting support from his brother.  If I could vote in that election, I'd vote for the other guy."  Am I campaigning?

Suppose I create a Facebook group for like-minded people to oppose the would-be dogcatcher?.  Am I campaigning yet?

Suppose I pay GoDaddy a few bucks to register www.danicahasbigboobsandidontlikethatguyrunningfordogcatcher.com and host that message board on a server in my basement?  Am I campaigning yet?  How 'bout if I do it with a business-class DSL link instead of a dynamic IP and a dynamic DNS resolver? 

How 'bout if I spend a couple extra bucks to put the server in a datacenter instead of my basement?  Am I campaigning yet?

How 'bout if I don't mention who I want for dogcatcher?  Just who I don't want.  How about if I'm buying banner ads saying "Anybody Whose Brother Didn't Donate To His Campaign For Dogcatcher"?  Am I campaigning yet?

How 'bout if my friend thinks the same way I do, but since he doesn't know how to host a website, he just throws me a few bucks to help cover my bandwidth bill?  Is he campaigning?

We let a lot of shenanigans because political speech is the ostensible reason for the First Amendment.  We protect the act of donating to someone whose view agrees with yours, because such donations are political speech.  (I'd argue that all of the preceding examples qualify as protected political speech.  If we go your route, where do we start shutting down websites and throwing non-voters in jail for expressing political views?)

Back to the issue at hand.  I strongly support not just political speech, but anonymous political speech.  If you don't want a tax deduction, but you want to support a cause, slip $20 into a fundraiser's pocket, and walk away.  You've just anonymously expressed a political opinion or made a charitable donation. 

If you want to donate in your own name by using a check or credit card, you've engaged in non-anonymous political speech, and you should full well expect to see your name to be up in lights someday.  The fact of your donation is irrevocably recorded in some database, and in the interest of transparency, why shouldn't everyone be able to see who you supported for dogcatcher, instead of just the Mayor's buddies?

Proposition 8 is a referendum.  Any part of public policy is public domain.

The freedom of information act should cover this sort of thing, so yes, it is fair to reveal the names.

(Besides, anything that involves shaping laws that apply to society as a whole should be as openly disclosed as possible.  About the only thing that should be kept secret are votes themselves.)

I have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, I feel like Proposition 8 is a political referendum, and as such, should be public record.  If someone contributes for or against the passing of it, they shouldn't have any issue with it being made public.  I contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, and I wouldn't have any problem if my name was on a list of contributors.  I'm proud that I supported him.  I would think that these people should feel the same way.

On the other hand, several people are using the list to track down and "punish" contributors.  And I don't know if that is right.  Now I am the first person to vilify supporters of Proposition 8.  Anyone who knows me knows that I am firmly in support of gay marriage...and that I think that the passage of the referendum was a travesty.  But in my heart, I'm against punishing someone for their opinion.  Because as Americans, we're all entitled to contribute to and vote as we see fit. 

When I first heard that the lists were being published, I was like "good, screw them."  Because I was (and still am) mad.  But then I asked myself if I had agreed with the views of the people on the lists, would I have been as ok with it?  And I didn't know the answer.

I will make one exception, and that is to any church that contributed.  Obviously the list was published so that people could see if the LDS Church contributed.  And the LDS Church is on the list of contributors.  And if they are contributing to political referendums, then I don't think they should be allowed to have tax exempt status anymore.  I think it's wrong for a church to contribute money to anything other than a chairtable cause.  So in that regard, I can see why the list was published.  But as far as the individuals go, I don't know that I agree with the publication.

Good points, Ash.

Personally, I think we need to get rid of the tax exemption of religion altogether, but any politician that even makes mention of that would lose re-election by a landslide.

Good points, Ash.

Personally, I think we need to get rid of the tax exemption of religion altogether, but any politician that even makes mention of that would lose re-election by a landslide.



I agree with you on this one.



Cat

Catch-22.  Your propopsal has gut appeal, but it's got a fatal flaw.

Suppose I can't vote in a town's election of its dogcatcher. 

Suppose I just post on a message board that "The guy who's got the big sign budget is getting support from his brother.  If I could vote in that election, I'd vote for the other guy."  Am I campaigning?

Suppose I create a Facebook group for like-minded people to oppose the would-be dogcatcher?.  Am I campaigning yet?

Suppose I pay GoDaddy a few bucks to register www.danicahasbigboobsandidontlikethatguyrunningfordogcatcher.com and host that message board on a server in my basement?  Am I campaigning yet?  How 'bout if I do it with a business-class DSL link instead of a dynamic IP and a dynamic DNS resolver? 

How 'bout if I spend a couple extra bucks to put the server in a datacenter instead of my basement?  Am I campaigning yet?

How 'bout if I don't mention who I want for dogcatcher?  Just who I don't want.  How about if I'm buying banner ads saying "Anybody Whose Brother Didn't Donate To His Campaign For Dogcatcher"?  Am I campaigning yet?

How 'bout if my friend thinks the same way I do, but since he doesn't know how to host a website, he just throws me a few bucks to help cover my bandwidth bill?  Is he campaigning?

We let a lot of shenanigans because political speech is the ostensible reason for the First Amendment.  We protect the act of donating to someone whose view agrees with yours, because such donations are political speech.  (I'd argue that all of the preceding examples qualify as protected political speech.  If we go your route, where do we start shutting down websites and throwing non-voters in jail for expressing political views?)

Back to the issue at hand.  I strongly support not just political speech, but anonymous political speech.  If you don't want a tax deduction, but you want to support a cause, slip $20 into a fundraiser's pocket, and walk away.  You've just anonymously expressed a political opinion or made a charitable donation. 

If you want to donate in your own name by using a check or credit card, you've engaged in non-anonymous political speech, and you should full well expect to see your name to be up in lights someday.  The fact of your donation is irrevocably recorded in some database, and in the interest of transparency, why shouldn't everyone be able to see who you supported for dogcatcher, instead of just the Mayor's buddies?


Foo Bar...

The "protected political speech" aspect of your argument has already been shot down by the Supreme Court in its approval of the McCain Feingold Act, which also places restrictions not only on spending but campaigning itself.

Note I have no problem with people SPEAKING for any candidate they want.  But once money starts to change hands, that is where the line gets drawn.

I fully believe that the precedent of the SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold would apply to the LyricBoy law.

I would want to know what companies support or oppose prop 8 so I know who I don't and do want to buy from but I don't know about listing individuals names...


I'm with you, companies fine but not individuals.  There are just too many whackos out there that my try to retaliate.  Everyone has the right to their own opinion and should be able to vote or donate according to their opinion without having to worry about retaliation.

The "protected political speech" aspect of your argument has already been shot down by the Supreme Court in its approval of the McCain Feingold Act, which also places restrictions not only on spending but campaigning itself.

Note I have no problem with people SPEAKING for any candidate they want.  But once money starts to change hands, that is where the line gets drawn.

I fully believe that the precedent of the SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold would apply to the LyricBoy law.


I dig.  But that's why I made so many fine gradations of examples.  Here's one more, and I don't even know how I'd rule on it: 

A user pays $30/month for Internet access with a 20GB/month bandwidth cap and $1.00/GB over the cap.  Or for a wireless phone with 100 free text messages per month, and $0.10 per text message thereafter.  The accounts are used for general purpose communications and the occasional politlcal message.

Do I have to look at my cell phone log and make sure I'm not saying anything political to my friends after my 101st txt? 

Do I have to look at my router logs and ensure that although I downloaded 30GB that month, it was 15GB of pr0nrandom surfing and 15GB of campaign commercials, so I'm OK because I can label the first 15GB (covered by the flat fee) as political content + 5GB of random surfing, and my 10GB of overage charges were entirely apolitical "internet surfing"?  Or do I have to make sure that after byte 20,000,000,001, I can only surf for pr0n, warez, and MP3z :)

Back on topic:

First, they came for the gays in Kalifornistan.
Next, they came for the divorcees in Floriduh.
And by the time they came for the bachelors, it was too late for me to get snipped.